Friday, February 29, 2008

They continued to say "No" to the Great Lakes Compact, pushing the fiction that with just a few simple tweaks, an agreement that has already been approved by four Great Lakes states' legislatures could be weakened enough to pass muster by a small group of obstructionists in Waukesha County.

"They" are business leaders and elected officials, such as Waukesha County Executive Dan Vrakas, rationalizing their stalling of the Great Lakes Compact at a forum Thursday sponsored by another of the nay-saying groups, the Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce.

The now-very partisan (so filter out the GOP chaff) uproar is primarily over the belief that the State of Michigan, under the Compact and an existing, 22-year-old federal law, might veto a diversion application from the City of Waukesha because it lies outside of the Great Lakes basin.

But the story makes clear that Waukesha City Mayor Larry Nelson supports the Compact because it establishes and clarifies diversion rules and procedures for the first time.

And Michigan did not block the diversion to Pleasant Prairie, so this spectre of big bad Michigan is something of a canard.

It's noteworthy that the Waukesha Freeman story on this conference has a flat-out mistake in its lead sentence, repeating the fiction that Michigan has opposed "any type of diversionary efforts."

If that were true, Pleasant Prairie wouldn't be getting Lake Michigan water today.

And speaking of errors, why does the Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce still have on its website the anti-Compact resolution it adopted last year that claims the two Canadian Great Lakes provinces have veto power over US states' diversion applications.

The Canadians' review is advisory only, and I have posted items about this uncorrected bit of xenophobia for eleven months.

C'mon, Chamber leaders: straighten out your story.

With seven years of negotiations and debate having led to half the Great Lakes states legislatures approving the Compact - - Compact versions that include as their foundation the very portions that Waukesha County's naysayers want changed with a mere wave of a magic wand - - there's no way that negotiations will be reopened so those four states would bow to Waukesha and adopt a new agreement, something along the lines of "The Greater Waukesha County Water Enabling Compact."

Attention Waukesha County policy-makers:

It's a regional, two-country Compact, a regional, cooperative plan to protect an international water resource.

And a number of Wisconsin editorial boards have also called out the Wisconsin GOP on its Compact shenanigans, with the latest reasoned effort by the Wisconsin State Journal, here.

If you think about it, what these Waukesha obstructionists want - - as do their allies in the state Assembly leadership who are blocking the Compact's introduction in Madison - - is the ultimate legislative protectionism of a Nanny State:

A special set of rules that will enable one segment of a larger group - - one County among hundreds across eight states and their equivalents in two Canadian provinces - - to have a special privilege or advantage.

Thursday, February 28, 2008

With very little fanfare, the Milwaukee Common Council has renewed its water sale arrangement with Menomonee Falls, despite some hiccups a few weeks ago at the Council committee level.

Despite the gnashing of teeth in some quarters, and predictions of the end of regionalism as we know it, Menomonee Falls' deal was re-upped, as was going to be the case.

There were so little fireworks when the vote came that Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had the story on page three of the Metro section in my edition.

Truth is - - Menomonee Falls was not, and is not, the sticking point when it comes to regionalism in these here parts on the water diversion issue, or other matters.

The early rhetoric about the pending deal, and the need to tie these arrangements to larger urban needs, like transit and housing and job opportunities, was aimed at other communities seeking water that do not have the best track records on recognizing that there are larger social and economic issues in the region that should be solved together.

Waukesha and New Berlin come to mind - - as I wrote at the time- - or other communities in the area likely to be folded into regional distribution of Lake Michigan water in new schemes being studied at the regional planning commission.

Communities that also have not been leaders in regional transit provision, or pushing the regional planning commission to get busy and update the regional housing plan that the suburbs have been content to have sat dormant since 1975.

What Milwaukee's Common Council and Mayor Tom Barrett are trying to communicate is that getting a valuable resource like water comes the need for reciprocity from the buying communities.

And not just the going rate of something like four cents per 100 gallons of water.

If there is to be real regional development in southeastern Wisconsin, and if that development is going to accelerate in the distant suburbs in part with Lake Michigan water sold by the City of Milwaukee, there needs to be a distribution of some of the water-borne benefits.

Sometimes that it called tax-base sharing.

State Sen. Mary Lazich, (R-New Berlin) one of the communities applying for a Lake Michigan water sale through Milwaukee calls it "extortion" - - not much of a negotiating tactic.

(One link touching on both tax-base sharing and Lazich's extortion screed is here).

And the GOP-run State Assembly is threatening to cripple the entire Great Lakes Compact, the very water management agreement that provides the quickest legal route to a diversion to Lazich's hometown - - an even worse negotiating tactic endorsed by the Waukesha County Chamber of Commerce, Waukesha County Executive Dan Vrakas and others.

So Menomonee Falls will continue to get its City of Milwaukee water.

We'll see if New Berlin and Waukesha get the point:

Regional cooperation means give and take, not just take, take, take, and when it comes to the Great Lakes Compact, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state's largest business lobbying group, said Thursday it has joined a national effort to highlight chronic disease - and its cost - as a key health-care issue in this year's presidential election.

WMC is part of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, a national coalition whose leaders include former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona.

In a statement, WMC said chronic disease accounts for 75% of health-care costs, and that half of costs are related to lifestyle choices such as smoking, unhealthy diet and lack of exercise.

Health insurance in the United States is largely provided through business and other employers, with the employer typically paying most of the cost.

Picketing at the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) Meeting at 770 Water Street , Milwaukee

There will be an informational picket at a WMC meeting in Milwaukee , Friday February 29, 2008 from 8:00 am until 10:30 am to coincide with their hosting a meeting designed to raise money to influence the Supreme Court race.

WMC is certainly the most influential lobbying organization in our state. It claims over 4,000 member businesses—and they make the biggest contributions, indirectly, to politicians’ campaigns through their issue ads they purchase at election time.

WMC, through its Issues Committee has played a prominent role in a number of state wide elections including the last campaigns for Governor, Attorney General, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

It does this by soliciting funds and then purchasing issues ads which do not support a specific candidate but which attack the candidate WMC opposes.

While WMC does not have to reveal its contributors, television stations are required to make public ad purchases.

Last July, the Democracy Campaign estimated that WMC spent $2.2 million on television and other advertising in an effort to defeat Annette Ziegler’s opponent in the Supreme Court race. (The Capital Times, July 24, 2007). Ziegler was subsequently found to have ruled in cases where she had a conflict of interest and now faces discipline from her colleagues on the Supreme Court

Today WMC is hosting a seminar designed to enlist opposition to the candidacy of Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler.

It is estimated that WMC will attempt to raise between $2.5 and $4 million in an effort to defeat the distinguished jurist, Justice Butler. Those picketing today are making it clear that the people’s Wisconsin Supreme Court is not for sale.

Members of labor and professional organizations are opposed to these efforts. We do not have the legal means to find out which WMC members fund these attack ads.

But we do have access to the WMC board of directors and can identify the people who are responsible for the decisions to raise the money and to buy the advertising. They can enjoy their right to raise money for issue ads and we have the right to note who is legally responsible for taking out the ads.

Again, we cannot name the individuals and corporations that contribute to the WMC Issues fund; that information is not available to the public. Only WMC can tell you who contributes to their political advertising.

We wish to make it clear that this is not a picket of M&I Bank, Marshall & Ilsey Corporation, or any of the occupants or tenants of 770 Water Street

The board members from these companies have the power to either stop the ads or at least reveal who pays for them.

For more information, contact Paul Soglin at Soglin Consulting, 608-238-4042. Or 608-770-0947 (cell)

BACKGROUND INFO ON ISSUE FROM PAUL SOGLIN

Here is the link to WMC’s website for more information as to what they are doing: WMC Regional Meetings: Wisconsin Supreme Court Unbound (When you go to this site it says page canceled. Wait and about 30 seconds later an Adobe page will open up. See what the WMC is saying about the present Supreme Court - you'll be surprised. Buzz Davis )

Below are some other articles and editorials. (We picketed WMC in Madison , Wausau and Green Bay in the past two weeks.)

Our Legal System Shouldn't Be For Sale –Wausau Daily Herald editorial…By the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's calculations, almost $6 million was spent -- most of it by special interest groups, and $2.2 million of it by one group alone. Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, which represents businesses and chambers of commerce, buried television stations with that much cash…

Not content with its recent sandbagging of the Great Lakes Compact and its water conservation provisions, the GOP-run State Assembly has turned its "Just-Say-No" mentality towards blocking innovations to address climate change that many other states are adopting.

Details here from Wisconsin Environment, including the unwillingness of the GOP's Assembly leadership to even schedule hearings on the Wisconsin Safe Climate Act, and all the important information from citizens and groups that could have been offered.

The GOP is needlessly and destructively politicizing any effort in the legislature to address environmental needs and issues, carrying water instead for business interests and contribution bundlers like Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce.

As long as the GOP holds its slim majority in the Assembly, partisan priorities will trump the public interest there - - and oddly, harm the state's growth and job-creation opportunities in the alternative energy and related agricultural sectors.

As is true in the GOP's opposition to the Great Lakes Compact, ideology and campaign financing arrangements are turning Wisconsin's "Forward" motto into an ironic joke.

Because the federal government is dragging its feet, the state Department of Natural Resources, under pressure from the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation and other state conservation interests, is adopting statewide rules to keep invasive species out of the Great Lakes.

Had the pleasure of listening to the infamous Rush for a few minutes today.

He managed to drop two of his stock phrases, "feminazis" (feminists) and "the drive-by media" (mainstream media) in nearly consecutive sentences, indicating his intellectual limitations and his waning appeal during the presidential campaign.

Limbaugh sounds predictable, whiny and out of touch, not just with people like me, who drop in here and there, but to his core, conservative audience that, unlike Rush, likes McCain.

State Sen. Mary Lazich, (R-New Berlin) has been hard at work undermining Wisconsin's ability to approve and implement the Great Lakes Compact - - a multi-state, US/Canadian agreement designed to ensure regional water conservation - - even though the Compact would ease federal water diversion restrictions that are currently blocking New Berlin from quick access to Lake Michigan drinking water.

It's a strategy of delay and destroy that regrettably was adopted last week by the GOP-run Wisconsin State Assembly, though those leaders, like Lazich, claim (wink-wink) that the intent is to "improve" the Compact.

Like destroying the village to save it.

Leaders in the Assembly said the Compact, produced after five years of negotiations that ended in 2005, should be reopened to produce an agreement so watered-down that the other Great Lakes states would just jettison it - - leaving the Great Lakes vulnerable to large-scale withdrawals without standards or reasoned processes, let alone with guarantees to return of diverted water.

Some improvements.

Lazich has a blog on which she notes her working alliances with similarly-minded, anti-regional ideologues in Ohio - - a blog on which she flays New Berlin Mayor Jack Chiovatero and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett for having had the temerity to even talk ("cozying up," are her words) about negotiating a water deal for New Berlin in the spirit of the pending Compact.

Lazich is not content with using her blog to tout her proud Compact "obstructionist" (her word) stance on the Compact's procedural heart - - a diversion-approval requirement also embedded in 22-year-old federal law.

She also calls for the Compact's renegotiation (four of eight Great Lakes states' legislatures have already aproved the Compact, making its renegotiation an impossibility and/or certain procedural death) - - and just to make sure you know who's saying and proposing all these things, she recently posted a blog link to every word she's put there about the Compact.

Why?

Vanity? Chutzpah? Blogger's Look-At-Me Syndrome?

All she's doing is calling attention to the details of her willingness to represent - - Ohio.

And her inability to grasp regionalism, or the need to preserve commonly-held resources, while parading her intemperance and intolerance.

People and things she doesn't like in this debate, in her own words, are "threatening," "extortion," "unconscionable," "dictatorial," "small-minded," "simplistic," "ill-conceived," "off-base," "appalling," and others.

Here are all her postings, in text, from this self-proclaimed "obstructionist," who, if her allies in the GOP-run Assembly have their way, will put the Great Lakes Compact and Great Lakes waters at risk:

Friday, Feb 15 2008, 12:55 PMFor months I have been recommending that Wisconsin refrain from approving a Great Lakes Compact that is flawed and should instead work with officials in other states that share my concerns, like Ohio to achieve a strong document.

That is why I am encouraged to hear that Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch and State Representative Scott Gunderson have written a letter to the President of the Ohio state Senate, Senator Bill Harris, stating they want to collaborate with the state of Ohio on changes to the Compact.

Representatives Huebsch and Gunderson correctly state they desire a strong Compact to protect the waters of the Great Lakes, that private property rights must be protected, and that one state should not have the power to impact the economic development efforts of another Great Lakes state.

I support Speaker Huebsch and Representative Gunderson in this endeavor.

The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel Editorial Board has written an excellent editorial in today’s edition, stating the sale of much-needed public drinking water from the city of Milwaukee to New Berlin should not be predicated on approval of the Great Lakes Compact.

The editorial position by the newspaper is right on the money and I commend the Editorial Board for taking this stance.

Several elected officials, representatives of conservation organizations, and private citizens held news conferences Tuesday calling for quick approval of a Great Lakes Compact.

I continue to urge caution to avoid approval for approval’s sake that might result in a flawed Compact.

Some of the comments made to endorse a fast Compact resolution are disturbing.

Milwaukee Alderman Michael Murphy issued a press release that, “the (Milwaukee Common Council’s) Public Works Committee unanimously passed a resolution that Milwaukee will not sign final agreements relating to the sale of water to communities outside the Great Lakes basin until all eight state legislatures in the Council of Great Lakes and two Canadian provinces ratify the compact.”

Murphy’s blunt statement is a direct shot across the bow, a clear indication that the city of Milwaukee doesn’t have any intention of assisting communities like New Berlin or Waukesha in dealing with their need for water.

Murphy’s press release also states that, “Once the compact is ratified; the City of Milwaukee may enter into agreements for the sale of water to neighboring communities outside the Great Lakes Basin.”

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has made similar statements, threatening to withhold water.

This amounts to pure extortion, and it’s very sad that Milwaukee officials would use a public-health issue as leverage to extort a vote. Here are the facts.

Milwaukee's role as it relates to water to the suburbs is only technical infrastructure, not denial or approval of access to Lake Michigan water.

Milwaukee doesn’t have authority to say yes or no.

It doesn’t have exclusive ownership of Lake Michigan or control of Lake Michigan water.

New Berlin has received approval from the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to negotiate with the Milwaukee Water Works for infrastructure access to Lake Michigan water.

The DNR told New Berlin they could negotiate with Milwaukee to access water, and those negotiations are taking place.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is telling mayors in the Senate district that I represent that they will not get water until I and other suburban legislators approve the compact.

The communities are under a radium enforcement issue. I do not take kindly to extortion, and I find it appalling that Mayor Barrett uses public health, denial of safe drinking water to my constituents as leverage.

I am told that Mayor Barrett is telling Mayors he wants them to develop low income housing and give him a share of all growth that results from Milwaukee giving the communities water.

If he wants to be the Mayor or city planner for the communities that I represent, then he ought to apply for the job.

Why does government regional cooperation not work? Because it is never cooperation; it is the City of Milwaukee using any means available to get control of suburban growth and get revenues from communities surrounding the city of Milwaukee.

The broad language of the compact and the problematic provision that allows a single Great Lakes governor to veto a proposal to divert water outside the Great Lakes basin are major sticking points about the Compact that remain.

One state enjoying dictatorial power is not consistent with the concept of majority rule our country is founded on, not to mention the issue of a governor of another state having the power to veto actions of people that do not elect that governor.

I spoke with a senator from Ohio and he informs me that Ohio is not going to ratify the Compact in its current form. Wisconsin should work in partnership with Ohio to address similar concerns and develop a more effective Compact.

I continue to interact with Ohio Senator Tim Grendell as he drafts legislation in Ohio.

Now the discussion on the Compact shifts to the state Legislature where the issue could very well get bogged down in partisan politics rather than focusing on scientific evidence and expertise.

Only two states that have little at stake, Minnesota and Illinois have ratified the Compact. It might be best for the Compact to be sent back to the Governors of the Great Lakes States so that they can correct the fatal flaws. Approving the Compact just to attain a Compact is not the solution.Filed under: Great LakesPermalinkMail to a friendComments (5)Add Comment

Last weekend, Great Lakes Legislators met in Michigan to discuss the great Lakes Compact, an issue I have been extensively involved in as a member of a special Wisconsin Legislative Council Committee reviewing the Compact.

Because I could not attend the meeting, I sent the following letter to Michigan State Senator Patty Birkholz and Great Lakes Legislators that outlines my many concerns about the Compact:

Dear Michigan State Senator Birkholz and Great Lakes Legislators:

Currently I serve on a Wisconsin Legislative Council Study Committee that has been meeting since September 7, 2006, to study and recommend whether the Wisconsin Legislature should adopt the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact.

Each of the eight Great Lakes states has a different stake in the Compact and the status of legislation to ratify the Compact varies from state to state.

I have followed this issue closely both on and off the committee, and I am very disappointed that I will not be attending the meeting in Traverse City.

Prior family plans with people attending from other states keep me in Wisconsin. The Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact implicates conflicting public policy issues.

The Great Lakes hold about one fifth of the world’s freshwater. It is undisputed that freshwater is a valuable resource that must be preserved.

Some people may argue that water should not be removed from the Great Lakes or from the Great Lakes Basin.

However, it is also undisputable that freshwater is used now to meet current needs and those needs will continue to grow.

We Great Lakes states do not want to be at a disadvantage by agreeing to a compact that denies our constituents and our states reasonable use of Great Lakes water.

There are various problems with the Compact including, but not limited to:

ONE STATE VETO

Under existing federal law, the 1986 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), one state’s governor can veto an application for a diversion of Great Lakes water. The parties negotiating the Compact failed to remedy this twenty year old flaw in totality.

Instead, it still exists in the Compact in relation to some diversions. Allowing one state to veto an application gives one state power out of proportion with that state’s interests in the Basin’s resources.

Giving dictatorial power to one state is not consistent with majority rule. Our country was founded on majority rule and our country exists to this day on the principle of majority rule.

CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY

Proponents of the Compact may say that it should be enacted so that the states in the Great Lakes Basin can determine the future management of Great Lakes water.

However, Congress has the final legal authority to interfere with the operation of a compact. The ultimate check on Congress is political and unfortunately the eight states that are party to the Great Lakes Compact have a minority of seats in Congress.

Historically Congress has rarely interfered with compacts it has approved; however; with water becoming a scarce resource and the Great Lakes states status as a minority in the U.S. Congress, there is a lot at stake for the Great Lakes states. I am concerned that over time Congress might enact changes to water law that are not in the best interest of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes states.

GOVERNORS MIGHT CHANGE COMPACT

Once approved by Congress, there is a provision of the Compact allowing the Governors of the Great Lakes states, sitting on the Council, to amend key provisions of the Compact regarding standards and reviews. There is the risk that they may amend the Compact so that it provides less protection for the Great Lakes, or at the other extreme, onerous regulations. This uncertainty always invites the possibility of litigation.

PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE

Adopting the Compact raises the specter of extending the Public Trust Doctrine to all waters in all Great Lakes states, including groundwater. Specifically, the trust language in the Compact, “The waters of the basin are precious public natural resources shared and held in trust by the states.”

For example, Ohio Senator Timothy Grendell has already noted that the Public Trust Doctrine language of the Compact would also have negative results in Ohio.

The Trust language in the Compact has been identified as language that cannot be modified by the states.

The Public Trust Doctrine has various meanings in the states, and the Compact may affect each state differently. What will it mean in the State and Federal courts, how will this get resolved?

FISCAL IMPACT

State and local governments will incur a fiscal cost for implementing the Compact, including the costs associated with litigation. The broad language of the compact is ripe for extensive litigation and state costs.

REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY

If ratified by all eight states and adopted by Congress, the Compact will be federal law. The results of litigation over the Compact may be unanticipated and unintended regulations, and states cannot change the Compact. The states do not have discretion to change substantive Compact language.

Early in the process, the Wisconsin Legislative Council staff provided our Study Committee with a memorandum that among other things identified examples of the broad language of the Compact. That memorandum is attached. The broadness of the Compact’s language invites litigation over its meaning and application.

CONCLUSION

The governors of the eight states and the premiers of the two Canadian provinces signed the Compact in 2005, and only Minnesota with very little at stake, and Illinois with massive special diversion protection in the compact, have ratified the Compact.

The Compact should be sent back to the Governors of the Great Lakes States so that they can correct fatal flaws in the Compact.

I hope the meeting in Traverse City is filled with healthy debate. I am very disappointed that I will not be in attendance, and I look forward to knowing the information presented in Traverse City.

If you have questions, comments, concerns, or advice for me, please contact me. Sincerely,Mary LazichState SenatorSenate District 28

For the past year, I have been serving as a member of the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact.

My efforts have been focused on the Compact’s ideal goal to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Great Lakes waters.

That is the large picture. I have also been concentrating on gaining access to Lake Michigan water for New Berlin and Waukesha, a need that is critical for those communities.

The work has translated into hours upon hours of meetings, exhaustive research, and numerous correspondences with other concerned officials and water experts from around the Midwest.

That is why I was very surprised to read the off-base comments of New Berlin Mayor Jack Chiovatero in today’s Milwaukee Shepherd-Express Metro weekly newspaper.

Reporter Dennis Shook writes in today’s Shepherd Express-Metro:

Chiovatero, who has meetings this week with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to discuss water access details, said he sees Lazich as the major obstacle to solving the city's water woes."These are her people ... she lives here," Chiovatero said of Lazich, who could not be reached for comment.

"She has Lake Michigan water herself and she's enjoying it. So let everybody else [enjoy] it. This is just a political thing going on that has me upset," he said of her opposition to the compact.

Chiovatero’s rationale and line of thinking is small-minded and simplistic. His criticism is misdirected.

Instead of cozying up to Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett who opposes access to Lake Michigan water for New Berlin and Waukesha, Chiovatero should be working with me, the state Senate representative of the area most affected by the Compact, to ensure our communities get the water they so desperately need.

How ironic that Chiovatero would call me an obstructionist on the Compact when he sits down at a meeting with Milwaukee’s Mayor who has been steadfast in his opposition to our area getting Lake Michigan water.

Barrett’s threat to prevent the ability of New Berlin and Waukesha to gain access to Lake Michigan water will result in requiring those communities to spend millions of dollars to drill new wells and treat existing wells. Withholding water from our area will endanger public health and will damage economic development.

Consistently, my opinion has been that the current Compact is a flawed document that is bad for public health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development, and generally bad public policy.

I am in no rush to approve a Compact that allows a single Great Lakes Governor to veto any diversion of water to New Berlin. Apparently Chiovatero fails to understand that provision alone would put the city of New Berlin that he is supposed to be representing in serious jeopardy of obtaining much-needed water.

The Compact that Chiovatero and Barrett say we should approve immediately is filled with flaws. Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School has written a research paper titled Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact.

Squillace maintains the Compact is so problematic that chucking it entirely and starting from scratch might be the best option.

Absent of any strict cap on overall use of water resources, the probability of overuse of water is high. Thus, the Compact fails to encourage conservation.

A critical Compact requirement is that states manage new or increased water withdrawals, a requirement Squillace calls cumbersome. Concentrating on new uses of consumption ignores existing uses of the resources that have a far more significant impact.

This edict will result in a failure to protect lake levels and a failure to promote the ecological health of the Great Lakes Basin.

Squillace also contends the Compact focuses too much on the place of the water use instead of the impact of the use on the overall water resources of the Basin.

Far from simple and efficient, the Compact forces states to regulate in a heavy-handed fashion that will impair economic development.

Chiovatero believes approving the Compact will be tantamount to waving a magic wand and like a panacea, our water troubles will conveniently be over.

I have done a lot of homework on this issue and it is far more complex than that.

Sadly, Chiovatero doesn’t get it.

I will not endorse a Compact that puts our communities in the precarious position of having water access stripped away by the whims of a single Governor in a neighboring state.

Furthermore, I will continue to speak out against the many defects in the document as long as they pose a threat to the welfare of residents in New Berlin and Waukesha.

On Tuesday, a group formed by Governor Doyle to work on the Great Lakes Compact met for two hours in the Governor’s office.

As a member of the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, and as the state Senator representing New Berlin and the Waukesha area that will be affected by the Compact, I should have been notified about the meeting and invited.

I was not.

Darryl Enriquez of the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel interviewed me Tuesday about the meeting and writes about it in today’s paper:

“Lazich (R-New Berlin) is fighting a key detail in the compact, one of several that show the deep political and economic divisions that have brought work to a standstill.

The legislative group headed by state Sen. Neal Kedzie (R-Elkhorn) has a Sept. 15 deadline to complete its work. It is reconvening today after a lengthy lull.Lazich's beef with the federal version of the compact is that any proposal to divert water outside the Great Lakes drainage basin can be vetoed by a single governor.

As outlined in the accord, a diversion must be unanimously approved.

Lazich is working to change that provision so that only a simple majority vote of the eight Great Lakes states governors is needed for approval of a diversion project.

Her stance is viewed as an obstruction to compact approval.

"The compact is so flawed that it gives one governor veto power and no recourse," Lazich said. "I'm very much an obstructionist to the single veto. I'm very much a supporter to preserving the Great Lakes."

Lazich said she was upset about not receiving an invite to the governor's working group.

A governor's spokesman said that seven members of the Kedzie committee attended the working group, along with governor's staff, state Department of Natural Resources staff, environmentalists and others."

Was there a meeting of the Kedzie committee and I wasn't notified?" Lazich asked. "I am very, very concerned, and I will make this an issue at the start of the compact group meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) morning."

At the beginning of today’s meeting, I asked for a show of hands of those committee members who attended Tuesday’s meeting at the Governor’s office.

Seven people raised their hands, many of whom are members of the same Great Lakes Compact subcommittee that I serve on.I reiterated my concern that I represent an area that has a great deal at stake on this issue, and yet was not notified or invited to Tuesday’s meeting.

I then respectfully asked some of the members who did attend to give a brief summary of what transpired so I could have the same frame of reference before today’s committee proceedings began.

There was a quorum of members of the subcommittee I serve on at Tuesday’s meeting in the Governor’s office.

That is very troubling, especially since I have been critical of the compact. I have referred to the Compact as a flawed document that is bad for public health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development, and generally bad public policy.

At today’s committee meeting, I requested that Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School be invited to speak to the Great Lakes committee. Squillace has written a research paper titled Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact.

The Compact’s ideal goal is to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Great Lakes waters.

Squillace writes the prescription in the Compact is sorely inadequate for achieving the stated goal. The Compact is so problematic that Squillace suggests chucking it entirely and starting from scratch.

The research paper published in the Michigan State Law Review can be found here.

Committee chair, Senator Kedzie said he will consider my request to add Squillace to a future committee agenda.

As a member of the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special Committee on the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, I readily admit that I am not in a hurry to ratify the Great Lakes Compact. I cannot support a flawed document that is bad for public health, bad for the environment, bad for economic development, and generally bad public policy.

Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Law School has written a research paper titled Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact.

The Compact’s ideal goal is to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Great Lakes waters.

Squillace writes the prescription in the Compact is sorely inadequate for achieving the stated goal.

The research paper to be published in the Michigan State Law Review can be found here.

With surgical precision, Squillace dissects the Compact components, illuminating the reasons the document is far from being ready for prime time. The Compact is so problematic that Squillace suggests chucking it entirely and starting from scratch.

Absent of any strict cap on overall use of water resources, the probability of overuse of water is high. Thus, the Compact fails to encourage conservation.

A critical Compact requirement is that states manage new or increased water withdrawals, a requirement Squillace calls cumbersome. Concentrating on new uses of consumption ignores existing uses of the resources that have a far more significant impact.

This edict will result in a failure to protect lake levels and a failure to promote the ecological health of the Great Lakes Basin.

Squillace also contends the Compact focuses too much on the place of the water use instead of the impact of the use on the overall water resources of the Basin.

Far from simple and efficient, the Compact forces states to regulate in a heavy-handed fashion that will impair economic development. In conclusion, Squillace says the Compact will not achieve its goal of protecting and conserving the Great Lakes.

I agree.

Riddled with too many problems, the Compact is bad public policy.

Meanwhile, the need for New Berlin and Waukesha to obtain Lake Michigan water remains serious. Because both communities must reduce the concentration of radium levels in their drinking water, their need for increased access to Lake Michigan water is in the interest of public health.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has made it clear he is going to stand in the way.

Barrett is threatening the ability of New Berlin and Waukesha to gain access to Lake Michigan water, resulting in requiring those communities to spend millions of dollars to drill new wells and treat existing wells.

I am very concerned about allegations James Rowen posted on his blog, The Political Environment, on February 28, 2007. Barrett is threatening not only to delay Waukesha’s access to Lake Michigan water but also to impose a tax on access to water.

The need for Lake Michigan water in New Berlin and Waukesha is critical and undeniable. It is unconscionable that Barrett would attempt to profit from this public health crisis by extorting these communities to pay a huge new tax. Withholding water will endanger public health and will damage economic development.

Barrett needs to reconsider his ill-conceived notion to take economic advantage of the public health plight in our communities.

This AP story, perhaps edited by the Waukesha Freeman, manages to state that snowmobiling deaths are escalating this winter, but leaves out any discussion of the traditional, and preventable causes: speed and alcohol.

Instead, it credits a 55 mph nightime speed limit for keeping the number of fatalities down, given this winter's big snowfall.

After several days of dirty air alerts for all Wisconsin's 72 counties, the warning issued Monday evening and running through noon Tuesday by the Department of Natural Resources only covers 16 counties.

The advisory is being issued because of persistent elevated levels of fine particles in the air. These fine particles come primarily from combustion sources, such as power plants, factories and other industrial sources, vehicle exhaust, and wood fires.

The Air Quality Index is currently in the orange level, which is considered unhealthy for people in sensitive groups. People in those sensitive groups include those with heart or lung disease, asthma, older adults and children.

When an orange advisory for particle pollution is issued, people in those groups are advised to reschedule or cut back on strenuous activities.

People with lung diseases such as asthma and bronchitis, and heart disease should pay attention to cardiac symptoms like chest pain and shortness of breath or respiratory symptoms like coughing, wheezing and discomfort when taking a breath, and consult with their physician if they have concerns or are experiencing symptoms.

Fine particle pollution deposits itself deep into the lungs and cannot easily be exhaled. People who are at risk are particularly vulnerable after several days of high particle pollution exposure.

To receive air quality advisories by e-mail, visit http://dnr.wi.gov/air/newsletters/.There are several actions the public can take to reduce their contributions to this regional air quality problem.Reduce driving when possible and don't leave vehicle engines idling.Postpone activities that use small gasoline and diesel engines.Minimize outdoor wood fires.Conserve electricity.For more ideas on how you can reduce your emissions today and every day visit: Do a little, save a lot!For more information:Federal interagency air quality web site, for information on the Air Quality Index and nationwide air quality forecasts and air quality conditions, http://airnow.gov/DNR's statewide air quality monitoring web page, http://dnrmaps.wisconsin.gov/wisardsFor local DNR air management program contacts, http://dnr.wi.gov/air/about/regions.htm

Out-of-basin, water-hungry Milwaukee suburbs in Waukesha County, should they wish to put some substance into regional (both in southeastern Wisconsin and across the Great Lakes, too) cooperation, could take their cue from Cudahy.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has extended its weekend statewide air quality alert through this evening, which means when it rains and snows later today, that's toxic precipitation landing on your yard and poisonous particulate matter in the air that is burying itself into your lungs.

And those of your kids and grandparents, too.

You will recall that the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state's leading business lobby, last year advocated rolling back air quality standards for southeastern Wisconsin, home to most of the state's polluting industry and vehicle traffic.

What is the WMC's approach now that these alerts have been coming repeatedly this fall and winter, and are not just the summertime notices that discourage people from playing sports and otherwise exerting themselves in heavy, moisture-laden, warm air?

Issue every Wisconsinite a portable breathing apparatus?

Mandate regular lung capacity checkups in health insurance policies?

Hand out free asthma medicines at WMC's lobbying offices in Madison to low-income, elderly and children especially vulnerable to lung diseases?

Why not give them a call and ask: 1-608-258-3400, or head for the group's website, with other contact and issue information, here.

You could also ask them why the organization is suggesting that the GOP-led state Assembly derail the Great Lakes Compact, too - - exposing the Great Lakes to whimsical and damaging exploitation through diversions without standards or controls.

The WMC is always worrying aloud about the business climate in Wisconsin (see a nice dissection of this faux issue by Paul Soglin, here) but when you look at its recent record, it seems as if its goals are to run down the state with endless complaints while blocking statewide resource protections that are in the widespread interest of Wisconsin residents.

So on the issue of helping to end the growing list of dirty air alerts in Wisconsin - - a state that needs to bring in tourists and encourage its residents to make the state their long-term home, here's a simple suggestion:

Taking a stand on the actual climate on behalf of business owners and employees who live here instead of whipping up negative media about the business climate in Wisconsin.

That stand would also be on behalf of the rest of us who like to buy locally - - but also want to breathe what is a common resource - - the air.

So to the WMC I say: be a strong advocate for air pollution standards that are better than what we have now, since current standards and practices are giving all of us - - and that includes WMC members - - the air quality of a cruddy day in LA.

One Wisconsin Now blogger Cory Liebmann, source of much of the investigative reporting that landed Annette Ziegler in hot water with the State Judicial Commission last year over ethical issues, has turned his attentionto the State Supreme Court candidacy of Burnett County Circuit Judge Michael Gableman.

This may not turn out well for Gableman, whose entry into the state judiciary took a rather unusual route, and which is now raising more questions as his explanations are vetted and documents are unearthed.

Gableman won his appointment to a Burnett County seat on the bench while living in another county, after making campaign contributions and helping host a fundraiser for Governor Scott McCallum.

Additionally, McCallum did not use the standard process when he gave Gableman the appointment.

I suspect he will attract few few votes this time. Five straight runs for President counting a 1992 write-in makes his effort this time really questionable.

Nader has been an important figure in many grassroots and progressive efforts.

He's iconic and has been influential.

But there's being strategic and smart and using your power to bring about awareness and change, and then there's marching too blindly to your own drummer, colliding with people with whom you'd be allies 95% of the time, but were too self-absorbed to see.

And in the worst of scenarios, sets up a repeat of the ugliness of the 2000 presidential election outcome, wherein Nader was credited or blamed with being the Bush-enabling spoiler.

And everything in its wake, from the Iraq war to years of environmental degradation.

Naderites hate that analysis, but that's a widespread perception, and unfortunately Nader can't help himself from having that all brought up again.

Why has Wisconsin turned into such a sourpuss? What's with this penchant for saying "No" all the time?

Wisconsin is headed towards being the ashtray of the Midwest, as we have failed again this year to enact a smoking ban in bars and restaurants, while neighboring states have made the move.

And we aren't permitted to have modern urban rail as a transportation option, as Chicago has had for years, and the Twin Cities is now enjoying.

Now our GOP--lead (sic) State Assembly is scheming various ways to kill the Great Lakes Compact, a regional water management agreement already adopted by four of the eight Great Lakes states, with others to follow, to help preserve a shared resource that makes up 20% of the world's fresh surface water.

We're looking like a backward, obstinate state that is a far cry from Progressive Wisconsin, the public policy laboratory that had a national reputation for good and innovative government.

Where the emphasis was on figuring out a way to say "Yes" to progress rather than reflexively saying "No."

It's more than coincidence that Waukesha County is the center of much of this negativity, having killed Milwaukee's light rail planning and now threatening to derail an entire eight-state, two-nation water conservation pact - - all to better serve powerful highway and land development interests.

Money in the political process, from the local level to the State Capitol, is the major barrier to a healthy Wisconsin agenda that puts common resources first.

The rise in special interest influence statewide - - and there is plenty of bi-partisan blame to go around on this one - - has given the restaurant and tavern lobbies enough sway in the legislature to overwhelm public sentiment that wants smoke-free dining.

It's why the highway lobby can find water-carriers at every level of government: they are even persuading Waukesha County to pledge $1.75 million in local funds to help build an interstate interchange to serve a privately-owned proposed shopping mall at Pabst Farms - - a mall literally planned in a farm field that has redefined itself from a so-called regional destination with upscale shops, fancy restaurants and other amenities to a big-box cluster in a glorified strip mall.

And into which your state transportation department, unwilling and unable to embrace rail transit in the region, has agree to spend nearly $22 million of our tax dollars to get the interchange done pronto.

(UPDATE: The alert for unhealthy levels for particulate matter in the air from the weekend has been extended into Monday for the entire state. Hat tip to The Racine Post blog for the graphic).

Are we Wisconsin, or LA/Midwest?)

This is the same WMC by the way, that couldn't defeat two-term incumbent Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, so then poured millions into electing an ethically-challenged mouthpiece to the State Supreme Court last year.

And the WMC appears to be headed down the same road in this year's Supreme Court election, too - - details from Paul Soglin, here - - boosting a candidate whose initial appointment to the state judiciary has a odious back-channel flavor - - details from Cory Liebmann and One Wisconsin Now (OWN) here.

All to reify, or perhaps embed into the law being the better phrase, their bottom-line self-interest through the rulings of activist justices elected with WMC resources.

(Disclosure: I sit on a OWN board but play no role in its Supreme Court candidates' research or publication.)

You would think business, civic and education leaders would recognize that retrograde, unhealthy and just plain selfish state policy-making gives Wisconsin demerits as parents consider sending their kids here for an education.

Or that graduates, new business owners, tourists and retirees would begin to see Wisconsin as undesirable compared to other states, including our neighbors.

Recent visitors here are regularly shocked that smoking is still allowed in restaurants and bars. The frequent dirty air alerts got their attention, too.And the state is pushing commercial expansion in the Kenosha area, and tourism in Door County. But doing it amidst air pollution that can bury dangerous particulate matter deep in your lungs - - some of which is there because we keep pouring billions into highways and intentionally withhold funding for rail alternatives.

How contradictory is that?

Study after study shows that an urban revival is underway nationally, but you can't pull that off in Wisconsin without rail.

Study after study shows that health is a major social and personal concern. But you can't attract and retain people if your public policies kiss off clean air, pleasant recreation indoors and out, and water conservation - - along with respecting the environment and the rights of neighboring states.

If Wisconsin's Assembly Republican leaders succeed in torpedoing the Great Lakes Compact, Wisconsin will go from good regional partner to pariah, the State that took "Smart" out of Smart Growth.

"No Way" won't keep Wisconsin moving forward, keeping up with the state motto and the statute of Miss Forward on the State Capitol dome.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Here's the unhealthy news from the DNR, again for this weekend, and now updated to include the entire sstate Monday, too, (and illustrated here by The Racine Post blog):

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is issuing an Air Quality Advisory for Particle Pollution (Orange) effective Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:01:51 PM through Sunday, February 24, 2008 11:59:59 AM for all Wisconsin Counties.

The advisory is being issued because of persistent elevated levels of fine particles in the air. These fine particles come primarily from combustion sources, such as power plants, factories and other industrial sources, vehicle exhaust, and wood fires.

The Air Quality Index is currently in the orange level, which is considered unhealthy for people in sensitive groups.

People in those sensitive groups include those with heart or lung disease, asthma, older adults and children. When an orange advisory for particle pollution is issued, people in those groups are advised to reschedule or cut back on strenuous activities.

People with lung diseases such as asthma and bronchitis, and heart disease should pay attention to cardiac symptoms like chest pain and shor tness of breath or respiratory symptoms like coughing, wheezing and discomfort when taking a breath, and consult with their physician if they have concerns or are experiencing symptoms.

Fine particle pollution deposits itself deep into the lungs and cannot easily be exhaled. People who are at risk are particularly vulnerable after several days of high particle pollution exposure.

To receive air quality advisories by e-mail, visit

http://dnr.wi.gov/air/newsletters/.There are several actions the public can take to reduce their contributions to this regional air quality problem.Reduce driving when possible and don't leave vehicle engines idling.Postpone activities that use small gasoline and diesel engines.Minimize outdoor wood fires.Conserve electricity.For more ideas on how you can reduce your emissions today and every day visit: Do a little, save a lot!< /ul>For more information:Federal interagency air quality web site, for information on the Air Quality Index and nationwide air quality forecasts and air quality conditions, http://airnow.gov/DNR's statewide air quality monitoring web page, http://dnrmaps.wisconsin.gov/wisardsFor local DNR air management program contacts, http://dnr.wi.gov/air/about/regions.htm

Henry Hamilton III, an attorney and candidate for Milwaukee's Ninth Aldermanic District, is running on a program that ties together job development, transit expansion and protection for the Great Lakes.

Sounds good to me: I think protecting the Great Lakes from growing exurban demands for Lake Michigan water is a litmus test for service as a Milwaukee elected official.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Gov. Jim Doyle urged adoption of the Great Lakes Compact Friday after a tumultuous week during which GOP Republicans and major state trade associations suggested the historic regional water management agreement be derailed.

With only a few weeks remaining in the current legislative session, approval of a Compact bill, delayed for more than two years, may occur in the Democratically-controlled Senate, but the Assembly, managed by GOP, may bottle the bill up in committee, or adjourn without taking action.

The GOP leaders and their business community allies are arguing that the Compact be renegotiated and amended, but that's little more than spin, as four of the eight Great Lakes states' legislatures have approved the Compact and inserted it into the states's law, as is.

Rewriting the Compact at this stage is impossible, and the GOP leaders know it.

Worse, if Wisconsin is the lone holdout among the Great Lakes states, the agreement does not go into force.

That would leave the Great Lakes vulnerable to wasteful uses and imprudent diversions that could harm the level and quality of their remaining waters.

And encourage the GOP and other Compact opponents to begin to sue to remove federal diversion protections, leaving the floodgates open for water to be moved by tanker ship to Asia (proposed in the 1980's), and by pipeline to parched areas too far from the Great Lakes for water to be returned.

Cleveland's Plain Dealer, Ohio's leading newspaper, editorially rips members of the Ohio legislature who are allied with GOP leaders in Wisconsin's Assembly who are also trying to kill the pending Great Lakes Compact.

"As we have said before, there is no place in public life for elected officials who would put at risk the future of Northeast Ohio's most treasured asset. That includes any members of the Ohio Senate who would put at risk our bountiful supply of fresh water."

Several Wisconsin conservation organizations, civic groups and leaders are beginning to react to last week's cynical ploy by GOP Assembly leaders to water-down or kill the pending Great Lakes Compact - - an eight state water management agreement.

The Alliance for the Great Lakes has posted its pro-Compact testimony delivered at a Kenosha hearing about the agreement - - a regional hearing moved out of the State Capitol to a Lake Michigan basin community, but was woefully under-covered by local and regional media.An exception: a thorough account in the Racine Journal Times, here.

Eight Wisconsin environmental and conservation groups hailed the hearing as a chance to highlight why a strong Great Lakes Compact is a necessity. Their joint release about the hearing is here.

The City of Waukesha apparently has procedural manuals and dictionaries in which the word "transparent" does not appear.

It has decided to keep secret an appraisal of the cost of acquiring 42 acres near the Vernon Marsh in the Town of Waukesha to meet some its near-term water supply needs.

Granted that the plan is a controversial one, as experts have said the drawdown of water could harm the marsh and other resources.

And no doubt acquiring 42 acres through condemnation is a pricey move, since conceivably a developer, under some scenarios, could put a lot of half-million dollar homes on quarter-to-half acre lots there.

And, of course, the inevitable litigation that will ensue, either from neighbors, Waukesha taxpayers, the Town of Waukesha, some, or all.

But keeping the details under wraps again slaps the local taxpayers in the face, as the Waukesha City Council and the Water Utility have a history of closed meetings that has inflamed some residents.

And it feeds the impression that Waukesha prefers closed-and-back-door policy approaches.

That impression has made Waukesha look like a less-than-honest broker and player in the water debates ever since it twice confidentially (unsuccessfully) sought a Lake Michigan diversion from Gov. Doyle in 2006 while various commissions and committees were working in the open to write diversion rules and agreements.

Diversion requests that completely bypassed all the procedures in place for reviews, analysis and approvals.

I found those documents among files provided by the water utility through an Open Records request - - hardly the way for a community still seeking a Lake Michigan diversion to let the public know that 24 millions of water was being sought, and without any guarantee of its return to the Great Lakes basin.

It's hard to break old habits, but this love of closed meetings when doing the public's business, spending the public's money and impacting resources held in the public domain is completely counter-productive, and costs Waukesha credibility every time it is repeated.

A few weeks ago, the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities pretty sharply criticized some environmentalists.

Those environmentalists had argued that if the Great Lakes Compact were implemented in Wisconsin, it should ban the shipping of water moved from a Great Lake to land that a diverting community annexed after December 13, 2005.

Here is a pdf to that Alliance publication. The Alliance argued that what the environmentalists were proposing could stunt Waukesha's growth, and shift development to Northern Illinois, where the US Supreme Court decades ago grandfathered a water diversion from Lake Michigan that the draft Compact cannot alter.

Why did the environmentalists suggest some limitations on water diverted to land annexed after December 13th, 2005?

That was the date that the eight Great Lakes Governors signed the draft Compact (in Milwaukee, by the way) - - the historic water management agreement now working its way through the states' legislatures, and which is about to be rolled out for formal legislative debate in Wisconsin.

Sources report that what the environmentalists had proposed - - and they would argue their suggested diversion limitation would discourage sprawl and minimize diversion volumes, and increase water conservation, too - - will not be in the Wisconsin draft.

The use of that term by the Alliance of Cities surprised me, because the environmentalists I know consider themselves urbanists, city-lovers - - pretty much the kind of groups and people that the Alliance represents.

When I worked for Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist, his office and the Alliance were pretty friendly. Those are good people there.

So with that in mind, how do should we label what the Assembly GOP leadership and their allies in the business community are proposing in a fullt-court press on their side of the Compact debate?

With a great deal more clout than conservation-minded environmentalists, these power-brokers and their water-carriers in the Assembly are proposing a lot more than tying the use of diverted water to the date the Compact was signed.

They have suggested such wholesale changes in the Compact that the whole deal would have to be sent back to the states for renegotiation - - and its certain death.

Powerful business groups, trade associations and key Republican legislators - - Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch, (R-West Salem), and State Rep. Scott Gunderson, (R-Waterford) - - know full well there will be no further negotiations.

That's because it took five years to write the Compact and four of the eight Great Lakes legislatures have already approved it.

There's surely an element of partisanship in their 11th-hour maneuvering and reaching out to like-minded GOP allies in the Ohio legislature, as they all know that Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, is chairman of the Great Lakes Council of Governors.

With Wisconsin the last state among the eight to see a bill introduced (Waukesha-area Republican legislators and other allies also derailed an effort last year to produce a bi-partisan bill in a study committee), the GOP Assembly leaders think they see an opportunity to embarass Doyle.

Again, their concern for the Great Lakes is plummeting about as fast as the historic falls in water levels in Lakes Superior and Michigan.

I have been blogging about these opponents and their strategies often this past week, with other posts dating far back into 2007.

Furthermore, the changes the Wisconsin Compact killers said the wanted last week want would render the Compact useless.

They want a simple majority of Great Lakes Governors, meaning five of eight, to be able to approve a request for a diversion of water to a community that is outside the boundaries of the Great Lakes basin.

That's a prescription for net water loss in the largest supply of fresh surface water on the planet.

It's like saying: "Wisconsin To Great Lakes Region: Drop Dead."

There is no way that three states could allow the other five to take water that belongs equally to all eight.

And to Canadians and native tribes, too.

That is why federal law for the last 22 year has mandated that all eight Great Lakes Governors must approve diversions of water that flows beyond the boundaries of the Great Lakes basin, and why that principle is in the Compact.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Disappointed that the reconfigured Pabst Farms 'upscale' mall may be anchored by a Target, and not a trendy IKEA, for example, some Waukesha County Supervisors are hinting that they may not fork over the County's $1.75 million share to pay for the mall's controversial interstate interchange.

The mall's store mix is still up in the air, its first developer pulled out, and subdivisions at Pabst Farms are on hold as the subprime lending crisis has cooled the housing market.

It may be that the entire exurban, regional-mall model is a thing of the past, as gasoline has run up to $3.19 a gallon and urban development looks more efficient and sustainable, experts say.

And it seems like some County supervisors are not as free-spending as the state department of transportation, which has promised $21.9 million of the interchange's $25 million pricetag.

Lake Michigan

Twitter

What water, wetland protection is all about

"A little fill here and there may seem to be nothing to become excited about. But one fill, though comparatively inconsequential, may lead to another, and another, and before long a great body may be eaten away until it may no longer exist. Our navigable waters are a precious natural heritage, once gone, they disappear forever," wrote the Wisconsin Supreme Court in its 1960 opinion resolving Hixon v. PSC and buttressing The Public Trust Doctrine, Article IX of the Wisconsin State Constitution.

Banned in Milwaukee

The right, suburbanites say "No light rail for Milwaukee."

James Rowen's Bio

James Rowen, a writer and consultant, has worked for newspapers, and as the senior Mayoral staffer, in Madison and Milwaukee, WI. This blog began on 2/2/ 2007. Posts run also at various news sites, including The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's "Purple Wisconsin."